MQA is Vaporware

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

You guys

 

If you really believe that MQA is "unwanted, and technically and audibly flawed money making scheme for a few", why aren't you more involved?  Seems you're just claiming some moral high ground and tossing pies.  Haven't seen you active in the discussions against MQA, but maybe I missed them.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, Mordikai said:

Most of the people who are against MQA don't participate much or at all in this thread because it is boring and repetitive.

 

What would make it exciting and fresh?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, daverich4 said:

 

The “discussion” in this thread was over several hundred pages ago. All it appears to be now is a contest to see who can come up with the most clever put down. 

 

But the post I'm replying to is not in that category? 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Internet "culture" has evolved even since this forum was founded.  Many keystrokes have been offered here recounting something like the "good old days" of Computer Audiophile when everyone just got along and the forum was the paragon of civility.

 

But now many if not most of us have been in some way affected by internet disinformation.  It wasn't that long ago (I've been posting in internet forums, including USENET, since the 1980s) that the idea of someone knowingly posting false information was hard to believe.  Now it happens thousands of times per day.  If you don't believe me, just look at your Facebook feed.  And if you don't have a Facebook account, you have my deepest respect.

 

The internet has evolved to the point where there are a relatively small number of people who literally post things to the internet (pictures, video, and text of course) as their primary source of income.  Inevitably, there will be those who can't get the level of attention (views, subscribers, etc.) they seek without posting some mix of provocative, false, sensational, or otherwise dubious content.  How many years has "click bait" been in our vernacular?

 

It is against this backdrop that we find ourselves swimming in digital disingenuousness.  Back in the day, we had the saying, "don't feed the trolls" and it was sage advice.  But now we have seen, first hand, lies repeated until some significant percentage (and in some unfortunate cases, a plurality or a majority) of people believe them.  And I don't mean they believe them with mild conviction.  I mean they're willing to harm others to protect what they believe to be unmitigated "truth".

 

I'm certainly not lumping MQA advocates into that group.  But I think it's important to acknowledge that cultures change and the tactics of messengers have entered a dark, dangerous place.  In the past, the word "propaganda" was used in the U.S. as mostly hyperbole.  Now it's real.  And I personally still find it disconcerting that so many people, seeing "success" in various propaganda campaigns, have utterly embraced it as a "means to an end".  Our civilization suffers.  Perhaps we're truly witnessing the fall of western civilization, albeit agonizingly slowly.  Or maybe not.  History will have the final say, if it survives the torrential onslaught of propaganda.

 

So, with respect, I push back against the torch bearers of civility.  Deliberately false information is the most heinous of incivilities in my opinion, and I for one will not just let it happen because the "trolls" aren't trolls any more.  They're witting purveyors of lies.  Ignoring them helps them greatly.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

Except the very last part - civility is the last defense against the barbarians

 

I disagree Paul.  Barbarians murder.  That's just what they do.  Civility, in that context, is something like quaint or just silly.  I for one would not be civil to the person who's about to murder me.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

When it comes to audio, which is just consumer electronics, the estimates vary just what the signal to noise ratio is.  Some believe as high as 40% of all "reviews" are pure propaganda.  I am not sure it is that high, but I do believe the culture of auidophiledom forces a "read between the lines" style upon almost all reviewers.

 

As far as the forums, it depends.  Some of them are little more than industry advertisements.  This one is pretty good.  Lee has found a way to keep the noise up against the signal, but any/all rule/moderation schemes have the strengths and weaknesses.  

 

Having suffered Scoggins' disingenuousness over at Hoffman for many years, I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably oversensitive to his internet tactics.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

MQA has zero chance of creating a corporate lock on the audiophile community, and even less so on the general music loving Apple Music subscribing populace. Zero point zero zero zero for as long as you want to keep repeating zeros.

 

I appreciate the conviction, and I hope you're right, but the future of "audiophile streaming" is far from certain and I don't share your confidence.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

I would simply politely shoot them first, not try to nag them to death.  

 

Seriously, I do not think the cases are comparable. These barbarians are accosting you with MQA - and that is not a lethal weapon. (grin)

 

Sometimes metaphors do not work.  IMHO, "barbarians" is not a good moniker for MQA shills.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

Perhaps the results of a correctly implemented DBT session performed by a group of USA Audiophile Style Forum members ?

 

Sounds like we have a volunteer 😄

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, daverich4 said:

 

It is. Neither of you is “discussing” anything. 

 

So you understand that the other in your "Neither" is you, right?

[Samuel T Cogley]

43 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

All that to say the same MQA lingo. 

 

My only response is that I have the facts on my side. I can't use alternative facts to present a counter point. The word truth is in the title of my presentation. 

 

I hope I'm reading you well enough to know you weren't really expecting a departure from the typical disingenuousness, were you?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Kyhl said:

This has all been refuted over and over.  Honest question, did you go to The Onion School of Journalism? 

 

I am still trying to understand why you keep spreading false information after it has been pointed out to you over and over that it is false.  This is so wrong and you know it is wrong that it isn't worth discussing again.  Instead it is time to question your motives.

 

Every response from Scoggins is to use that opportunity to parrot MQA marketing fluff.  That's why he's here.

[Samuel T Cogley]

35 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 "who is Archimago, why is he anonymous and what are his possible motivations?"

 

Quint, like the MQA executives, and Scoggins, is still trying to shoot the messenger.  Archimago's meatspace identity is utterly irrelevant to the technical issues he has highlighted.

 

If speculation about Archimago's motivations is fair game, why not the motivations of Scoggins or Quint?  Not understanding the asymmetry (hypocrisy?).

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I agree with you! In a calmer, less emotionally-fraught atmosphere—without shouted remarks from the floor and, as a result, Chris getting knocked off a line of argument he was trying to establish—that point (regarding Archimago) could have been made.

 

Thanks for the response, but it's still not apparent why you brought up something that you now seem to be saying is irrelevant.

[Samuel T Cogley]

To date, the only response that MQA has offered to valid technical criticism is "ignore the rude, angry trolls".

 

That by itself should be informative to those still on the fence about MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Also please understand that I have no problem at all with Archimago's anonymity—he's an honest and thoughtful observer. His anonymity is not like, say, Brinkman Ship's, which was fundamentally dishonest and—to my mind—helped to undermine real conversation.

 

I'm not at all sold on this thesis.  MQA is  a corporation with as much marketing muscle as they can afford behind it.  MQA set up a closed Facebook group where audio forum posting was coordinated and some assumed anonymous identities to do MQA's bidding in the forums.  I know of no equivalent clandestine activity on the part of MQA critics.

 

I'm struggling to understand how @Brinkman Ship 's posts were such a reprehensible sin while what MQA did with Facebook and audio forums was just accepted as the way the internet works.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, ARQuint said:

Lee S (who maintains that he's not in the employ of MQA, but is obviously an advocate) wrote a lengthy critique of Chris's slides a few pages back. I don't expect you to agree with his points, of course. But why doesn't this represent the sort of substantive argument for the technology that you and others say is never offered?

 

Andrew, with due respect, Scoggins simply copied/pasted MQA marketing information instead of engaging in any substantive debate.

 

And that's always what he does.

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

this hobby isn't doomed and the most aggressive combatants, I feel, can lighten up a bit.

 

I believe that disingenuousness is just as rude as personal attacks.  Incivility begets incivility.

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Why is Lee, in your view "not truthful" rather than simply "wrong"?

 

Because in the years that I've been reading his posts, here and in other audio forums, he always, always sides with the vendor, and never the consumer.

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As a side note ... the goal is all important - "whatever it takes!" is the mantra. Sometimes, you find taking one step back allows two or more steps forward - later in the journey one can finesse, refine every aspect of the system, to fully optimise and make 'perfect' every part - when one fully understands.

 

This has nothing to do with saying that MQA is part of a solution to something - just, that one may need to 'compromise', or do something silly to make the bigger picture happen, at that moment.

 

With respect, this is just gibberish.  Mind numbing gibberish.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

IOW, you refuse to buy a piece of sofware that isn't certified to be 100% perfect - it is "gibberish" to allow real world systems to operate that may possibly have long term 'defects' in them, which have had a bit of rough plumbing put in place to make the core functionality behave itself?

 

BTW, which OS do you use - and where is its certificate of perfection?

 

I'm sorry.  It looks a lot like English.  But I'm just not getting it.  Please don't try again.  I apologize for responding to you in the first place.

[Samuel T Cogley]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

So if somebody who bought stuff from Amazon is an anarchist...

 

Kudos to Jud for inserting an oblique reference to the Sex Pistols.  To my knowledge, none of their back catalog is available in MQA.

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I'll make this point again, if only because it (the "e-word") seems to annoy a few prolific posters at AS who seem to view journalists, retailers, and even some manufacturers, as being involved in a kind of class warfare.

 

Hi Andrew.  I think you really missed the mark this time.  "class warfare" is a loaded term, and means entirely different things to different people.  As such, it is utterly counterproductive and maybe even a little trollish to use that term at all.

 

Many of us have had unpleasant experiences at brick and mortar audio stores.  I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  And just for the record, I sometimes patronize a local store, know the owner, and generally have positive experiences there.  But even at that store, they often don't have answers for questions that I need answered.  For example, they have an apparent disdain for Audio Technica phono carts (they don't sell them) and always try to suggest that there's always something better than AT.  I purchased a $2000 turntable there a few years back (around the U.S. peak of resurgent turntable sales), and gladly accepted the recommendation for a cartridge that was made by a company under the same corporate umbrella as the turntable maker.  While the cartridge may be a solid performer on other tables, it was not a good match at all for the tonearm.  But I took this in stride as part of the experience I was looking for was determining for myself what cartridge worked best for my needs.  I purchased several different carts but avoided Audio Technica as I was confident that I was given good advice in that regard.  None of those carts really performed well, for various reasons (and not really the point I'm trying to make).  It was only when I acquired an Audio Technica AT150MLX that the table really showed what it's capable of.  And that cartridge is less expensive than almost anything else I tried.

 

So my point is that most brick and mortar places I've visited have a certain list of manufacturers whose products they carry, and generally will attempt to steer you away from products they don't carry.  And in my experience, this prevents them from truly finding the best solution for the audiophile.  So now I simply research on my own and if the product that I select is carried by my local store, they get the business.  Otherwise, I'll likely buy from the internet.  There are legitimate reasons why brick and mortar sometimes will not or cannot offer the "best" solution.  And it has absolutely zero to do with any kind of economic class envy.

 

Quote

My, it's gotten late. I'll pack it in for now.

 

Which I've come to understand means, "I'm just lobbing some text at the forum and don't necessarily plan to follow up to any replies".

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

The table pounding happened in real life.

 

...and it was, in concert with Scoggins and Jbara, some of the worst performance art I've ever seen.  😃

[Samuel T Cogley]

41 minutes ago, crenca said:

In Audiophiledom, no one is really eating each other of course - but the truth is being eating up and spit out as if it was nothing, as is the money in your wallet. The aging Old Lions like walk around saying "hear little rabbit, can't we all just get along, were all on the same team are we not", this just before they try to $sell$ you MQA or whatever.

 

Not that it matters much, these Old Lions are increasingly seen for what they are.  😉

 

The consumer on the side of a consumerist transaction wants to feel good about the experience, so there's a heap of psychological baggage that comes with consumerism.  The seller, on the other hand, is the predator in that transaction and a positive experience for them is mostly tied to their success of getting the consumer to buy the thing (i.e., successfully capturing the prey).

 

I understand that there is a kind of folksy nostalgia around the days when most of the audiophile buying public trusted print magazines to tell them what to buy.  But information has been democratized by the internet and the seamy underbelly of dubious audiophile claims has been laid bare.  Witness how many times MQA has changed their story.  It's not a coincidence  that the most ardent supporters of MQA are also the ones most likely to still trust the old print magazine system that painted manufacturers as something akin to wizards making magical and "musically engaging" gear.